SEC.

4 FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION
BORJAL VS. COURT OF APPEALS
(G.R. No. 126466, January 14, 1999)
BELLOSILLO, J.:

Facts: Respondent Francisco Wenceslao is the Executive Director of the First National Conference on Land
Transportation (FNCLT). As such he wrote numerous solicitation letters to the business community to ask
for support for the conference. Arturo Borjal is one of the regular writers of the Philippine Star and runs the
column Jaywalker. Between May and July 1989 a series of articles were written by petitioner Borjal. A
civil action for damages based on libel was filed before the court against Borjal and Soliven for writing and
publishing articles that are allegedly derogatory and offensive against Wenceslao. The articles dealt with
the alleged anomalous activities of an "organizer of a conference" without naming or identifying private
respondent. Neither did it refer to the FNCLT as the conference therein mentioned.The lower court ordered
petitioners to indemnify the private respondent for damages which was affirmed by the Court of Appeals.
Petitioners then brought the case to the SC contending that private respondent was not sufficiently identified
to be the subject of the published articles and assuming arguendo that respondent was sufficiently identified
in the articles, that the articles are of privileged communication and thus can be used as a valid defense
against a libel suit.

Issues: 1.) Whether or not there are sufficient grounds to constitute guilt of petitioners for libel 2.) Whether
or not the articles are qualifiedly privileged communication

Held: 1. In order to maintain a libel suit, it is essential that the victim be identifiable although it is not
necessary that he be named. It is also not sufficient that the offended party recognized himself as the person
attacked or defamed, but it must be shown that at least a third person could identify him as the object of the
libelous publication. These requisites have not been complied with in the case at bar. The element of
identifiability was not met since it was Wenceslaso who revealed he was the organizer of said conference
and had he not done so the public would not have known.
2. The concept of privileged communications is implicit in the freedom of the press and that
privileged communications must, sui generis, be protective of public opinion. Fair commentaries on
matters of public interest are privileged and constitute a valid defense in an action for libel or slander as it
is considered an exception in Art. 354 of the Revised Penal Code. While, generally, malice can be presumed
from defamatory words, the privileged character of a communication destroys the presumption of malice.
The burden of proving actual malice then lies on plaintiff, private respondent Wenceslao herein This he
failed to do. Even assuming that the contents of the articles are false, mere error, inaccuracy or even falsity
alone does not prove actual malice. Errors or misstatements are inevitable in any scheme of truly free
expression and debate. Consistent with good faith and reasonable care, the press should not be held to
account, to a point of suppression, for honest mistakes or imperfections in the choice of language. There
must be some room for misstatement of fact as well as for misjudgment. Only by giving them much leeway
and tolerance can they courageously and effectively function as critical agencies in our democracy.
The doctrine of fair comment means that while in general every discreditable imputation publicly
made is deemed false, because every man is presumed innocent until his guilt is judicially proved, and
every false imputation is deemed malicious, nevertheless, when the discreditable imputation is directed
against a public person in his public capacity, it is not necessarily actionable. In order that such discreditable
imputation to a public official may be actionable, it must either be a false allegation of fact or a comment
based on a false supposition. If the comment is an expression of opinion, based on established facts, then it
is immaterial that the opinion happens to be mistaken, as long as it might reasonably be inferred from the
facts. Respondent is considered a public official since the conference was imbued with public interest. Even
granting for the sake of argument that he is not a public figure, he still cannot do away with public scrutiny
because he is involved in a public issue.